Nuckertuzzi wrote:Never thought I'd say this but given the shortened season and new cap system, maybe the best thing for us is to not trade him this year. It's going to be a salary dump at best with an ugly return. Too uncertain in goal with Cory missing so much hockey and uncertain backup situation with Lack injured/unproven and all. The only risk is if Lu will be a good soldier and backup Cory without being a distraction because the only way he gets No.1, especially in the playoffs, is if Cory proves he can't handle the job or gets injured.

It's a big risk keeping him but goaltending is going to be the biggest factor in this brief year and giving up the insurance might be the biggest risk we take. As bad as our center position looks, Tyler fuckin' Bozak ain't enough for me to give up the insurance.

I agree. I think if Gillis does not see a worthy deal, he can gamble - and yes it's a gamble still to be sure - that going with a 1 and 1a tandem gives the team a better to chance in a short season than putting a short, compressed season on CS's shoulders right away. The gamble is that it creates too much of a distraction and/or RL is terrible and his trade value tanks in the off season...I suspect MG does a have a deal close to ready to go, but as a fan I would not have an issue with them both being there to start the season. We'd have the best tandem in the league, imo, for this season sprint.

Hockey Widow wrote:
The Burke clause. Two things Burkie has advocated: ability to keep/trade cap space: the cap-recapture penalty ( I like that name for it, who coined cap-recapture). He wants Luongo and he wants to ability to take less cap and let the Canucks hold the consequences if Luongo retires before the cap expires. Its part of his self righteous act.

Seems like we have an answer, and yes, the new CBA will more than likely contain a "cap-recapture" clause that will most certainly have some sort of impact on Luongo.

@mirtle
Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years."

Now I'm curios to know how that formula works and how much of a cap-hit will be counted against the team that signed a deal in excess of 6 years.

Hockey Widow wrote:
I still think given the cap this season and next that we have no hurry to trade Luongo. We can afford to wait until this season is done, teams complete their buy outs and then see what the market bears. Luongo has been nothing but a committed Canuck and a good teammate. I doubt having him here would pose a problem. It may pose a dilemma for AV though.

I've advocated keeping Luongo and Schneider if possible for a long time. Obviously with the cap decreasing, they can only keep the two for this season, which as it has been pointed out by others could be greatly beneficial to have two great goalies in a short season.

If the "cap-recapture" penalty is somewhat onerous then it really behooves Gillis to get an excellent return for Luongo, otherwise the prudent, although the toughest move, would be to buy him out next summer.

On the bright side, the "cap-recapture" (which should really be called: "fucking over teams that signed circumventing deals") should limit the risk of teams trading for Luongo on a superficial level even though the team trading for him will not realize any tangible risk aversion since Luo's contract would be off the books for a new team anyways if he retires early, whether the clause would exist or not.

while I agree in principle that keeping Lou and Schneids has merit, I don't know how you give each enough work in a restructured 50 game season to get them sharp for play-offs. Cory will need/should get 40 (or so) of the starts just to get him into fighting trim. So we keep Lou at 5.3/year for 10 regular season games?

I think Lou will move but I'm not sure where. he's too big a competitor to ride the pine; even though he has been a gentleman and class-act to date.

wafflecombine wrote:So we keep Lou at 5.3/year for 10 regular season games?

I think Lou will move but I'm not sure where. he's too big a competitor to ride the pine; even though he has been a gentleman and class-act to date.

I think so.

Unless there is/was a gentleman's deal already arranged pre-lockout, I can see both Cory and Roberto sharing duties for the first 20-ish games. And if one falters, the other is a great option for us in a short season with mega importance to any three losses in a row.

Regardless, if Lu is moved I'd like to see a young fwd that can slot into the top 6 (specifically on the RW or center if Kesler/Schroeder aren't working/unhealthy), a high pick in next yrs draft (although no idea whats happening with the lottery) and at least a solid defenseman with upside.

@mirtle
Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years."

Now I'm curios to know how that formula works and how much of a cap-hit will be counted against the team that signed a deal in excess of 6 years.

I keep searching,there are no confirmed details out yet.

However the PA proposed a “cap benefit recapture formula” awhile back and the NHL included that very same formula in their next counter-offer. So I think it's safe to assume that formula would be in the new CBA.

I was hoping they might only count the benefit going forward (ignoring the first 2 years on Lou's contract) but I suppose that is highly unlikely.

Anyway, here's my post from Dec 29:

Strangelove wrote:
Not sure how this will work exactly, but a coupla weeks ago Mirtle explained the “cap benefit recapture formula”.

wafflecombine wrote:
Cory will need/should get 40 (or so) of the starts just to get him into fighting trim. So we keep Lou at 5.3/year for 10 regular season games?

That would be my plan - 35 to 40 games for Schneids and Lou is our backup. The thing is it's not about him being a 5.3 mil backup but rather insurance policy, and with so much riding on this year 5.3 mil doesn't seem that much to spend on the insurance.

I've seen enough of Schneids to have all the faith in him to be our starter for years to come. However, for a guy who already hasn't played a lot of hockey the past couple seasons prior to this one and then having not played at all for 8 months, then to get thrown right into a meat-grinder of a season, you have to question how any goalie not named Martin Brodeur or Patrick Roy would fair. Not to mention having to deal with the pressure of being the no. 1 guy replacing Lu. It wouldn't surprise me at all of he's off early and needs months to gain form. He could ease into the role and there's room for error with an 82 game season. Not so with 48. It would be certainly more comforting to know you could go to Lu if you have to over Lack or Reimer or whomever.

The only complication is our damn massive hole(s) at center. If Kes wasn't injured, I'd ride Lu one more year for sure but we might have no choice but to trade him. ....Bozak though??? ....might as well just get Wellwood back.

Last edited by Nuckertuzzi on Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Strangelove wrote:
Yeah, probably in the neighborhood of $3.5mil in cap-space 6 years down the road.

Or perhaps Lou plays until he's 43.

I just roughed the numbers out in my head, anyone care to do the math using this formula?

Some nice leg work there.

Depending on how the formula works and when Luongo retires it could be anywhere from a $1.5M cap hit to $4M.

Just a thought, but it will be interesting to know if teams will be allowed to buy-out those deals in excess of 7 years. If that's allowed and more benificial than taking the cap-recapture penalty, then I could see a scenario where the Canucks trade for Luongo right before he retires, only to buy him out.

Since we don't know the full scope of the recapture penalties, it's difficult to say what the options a team has when facing that type of situation.

Either way, it seems like it will definitely penalize the Canucks in some way in the future unless Luo plays until he's 43.

Strangelove wrote:
Yeah, probably in the neighborhood of $3.5mil in cap-space 6 years down the road.

Or perhaps Lou plays until he's 43.

I just roughed the numbers out in my head, anyone care to do the math using this formula?

Some nice leg work there.

Depending on how the formula works and when Luongo retires it could be anywhere from a $1.5M cap hit to $4M.

Am I the only one who thinks $4M in cap space 6 years from now will be peanuts? Or should I say peanut crumbs? Strangelove can do the math to figure out how many metric tonnes. I think it's around 2000.

wafflecombine wrote:
Cory will need/should get 40 (or so) of the starts just to get him into fighting trim. So we keep Lou at 5.3/year for 10 regular season games?

That would be my plan - 35 to 40 games for Schneids and Lou is our backup. The thing is it's not about him being a 5.3 mil backup but rather insurance policy, and with so much riding on this year 5.3 mil doesn't seem that much to spend on the insurance.

I've seen enough of Schneids to have all the faith in him to be our starter for years to come. However, for a guy who already hasn't played a lot of hockey the past couple seasons prior to this one and then having not played at all for 8 months, then to get thrown right into a meat-grinder of a season, you have to question how any goalie not named Martin Brodeur or Patrick Roy would fair. Not to mention having to deal with the pressure of being the no. 1 guy replacing Lu. It wouldn't surprise me at all of he's off early and needs months to gain form. He could ease into the role and there's room for error with an 82 game season. Not so with 48. It would be certainly more comforting to know you could go to Lu if you have to over Lack or Reimer or whomever.

The only complication is our damn massive hole(s) at center. If Kes wasn't injured, I'd ride Lu one more year for sure but we might have no choice but to trade him. ....Bozak though??? ....might as well just get Wellwood back.

Cory has been playing in the Swiss league so he isn't coming in cold.
How will Luongo and his famously slow starts factor into this theory? Will it decrease his trade value? I have to say yes.

I would like the circus to leave town before the season gets going so Schneids can just focus on what he's good at.

Every time I look over Torontos' roster, I hate what I see. They just don't have what we need at all. Florida is a far better trading partner with numerous interesting options. So who do they have that realistically could be coming back to us?

Stephen Weiss? I think he's UFA after this season but don't know for sure. If they have any doubts about him resigning it could be an option although it would be a huge loss for them. I'd say highly unlikely to no way in hell.

Eric Gudbranson? He would be my top choice but no way they let him go. No way in hell.

Jon Huberdeau? After a very ordinary showing in UFA I have to think he has become a possibility. He still has considerable upside and possesses elite hand skills but hes a bit of a softie in my books. I suspect he's headed towards an Alex Tanguay type of pro career and I'd prefer someone with higher upside personally. I'd say more likely today than a month ago.

Alex Petrovic? I would say he is surely on Gillis's radar. He has exactly what we need looking forward but wouldn't help much for the next year or 2 maybe. An excellent prospect with an almost guaranteed upside. Would almost certainly be the key piece of a trade with Florida in my opinion.

There's also Howden, Shore, Bjugstad, Skille, Mattias etc to add onto a possible Petrovic deal. Nothing to help immediate concerns but a trade like this would help alleviate apparent shortcomings in our prospect pool.

Fast forward to end of April. Schneider starts the first 4 games of the season looking VERY average in them. Lou comes in for a game and steals it for us. Schneider gets another start and screws the pooch. Lou gets 2 in a row and is a brick wall. They then share the load for the next 10 games with Lou well outperforming Ginger. Lou stays hot and plays 2/3+ of the games to end of regular season. At the end of April, Canuckland is talking about how we need to trade Schneider as we can't afford both salaries.

Is this scenario far fetched? Is it as far fetched as 18 months ago people running Lou out of town? Granted he has a mule of a contract, but cap-wise, it's a solid #1 goalie type cap. I'm definitely not saying it will happen this way, but I do see merit for carrying 2 goalies for the first 20 or so games to make sure Ginger is comfortable in his #1 role.

Tanti09 wrote:Fast forward to end of April. Schneider starts the first 4 games of the season looking VERY average in them. Lou comes in for a game and steals it for us. Schneider gets another start and screws the pooch. Lou gets 2 in a row and is a brick wall. They then share the load for the next 10 games with Lou well outperforming Ginger. Lou stays hot and plays 2/3+ of the games to end of regular season. At the end of April, Canuckland is talking about how we need to trade Schneider as we can't afford both salaries.

Is this scenario far fetched? Is it as far fetched as 18 months ago people running Lou out of town? Granted he has a mule of a contract, but cap-wise, it's a solid #1 goalie type cap. I'm definitely not saying it will happen this way, but I do see merit for carrying 2 goalies for the first 20 or so games to make sure Ginger is comfortable in his #1 role.

Your scenario is plauseable. And, do we get a fair trade for Schneids if we decide to keep Lou? I say yes.

I think we are sitting pretty whether we trade either one away, or keep both. I'd say that there are a lot more teams who need Lou way more than the Canucks need to drop a goalie.